Malkhan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malkhan v. City of New York

44 A.D.3d 1013, 843 N.Y.S.2d 845

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 1013 (Malkhan v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malkhan v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 1013, 843 N.Y.S.2d 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated May 5, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The plaintiff tripped over a fuel oil valve in an uneven public sidewalk near a staircase leading to an elevated subway station. On its motion, the appellant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, prima facie, that it had no duty to maintain the area where the plaintiff tripped (see Simo v New York City Tr. Auth., 13 AD3d 609, 611 [2004]; Pantazis v City of New York, 211 AD2d 427 [1995]). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated May 5, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The plaintiff tripped over a fuel oil valve in an uneven public sidewalk near a staircase leading to an elevated subway station. On its motion, the appellant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, prima facie, that it had no duty to maintain the area where the plaintiff tripped (see Simo v New York City Tr. Auth., 13 AD3d 609, 611 [2004]; Pantazis v City of New York, 211 AD2d 427 [1995]). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 1013, 843 N.Y.S.2d 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malkhan-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack